The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

While Chiquita was never in serious danger of becoming a generic term for one of our favorite fruits, it could still pretty commonly come to mind for bananas. It’s a fun name to say. It is a name which has, what trademark people might call, real “curve appeal.”

Every once in a while there is a merger and you can just tell the parties spent umpteen hours trying to resolve the name issue, and came up with no solution. Each probably thinks the new entity would do just fine going forward with its old name. “Chiquita” is going to help us grow. “Fyffes” is a great way to reenergize an established brand. We can’t let go of “Chiquita.” It’s iconic. “Fyffes” means bananas to our customers. But when all else fails, the discussion probably becomes “well, if ‘Chiquita’ has good branding flavor and ‘Fyffes’ is palatable, let’s go with both names.” A sweet, awkward mouthful.

Believe it or not, “Fyffes” has been a U.S. registered trademark since the 1960s, when the mark was registered to United Fruit Company of Boston, which then handed its names to United Brands, before switching over to “Chiquita” in 1988 (the companies once shared a common history). It has been “Fyffes” since 1996.

This is a picture of bananas on a countertop. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The “Chiquita” trademark first was registered in the USA in 1947 for bananas, and included a design of a banana-shaped woman who appears not totally unlike the current version of the Chiquita Banana woman. In the artful lingo of the official government trademark “design code” manual, this is classified as “other grotesque women including women formed by plants or objects.” (Design code 02.03.28, for those of you scoring at home.) Other than to the very well-informed, the fact that the likes of Hermes also owns registration for “Chiquita” (for leather goods) may be a surprise.

No one has yet to file an application to use “ChiquitaFyffes” for bananas, and it is not clear to me if they plan to change their mark and marketing into a true global brand, deserting the “Chiquita” trademark they have used in the United States for so long. It appears the cost savings and market leadership over now #2 Dole are incentive enough. But the same forces which lead to a terrible compromise on the corporate name will put pressure, over time, to mark the goods with a single name in all markets. A quick look at what has happened in the Trademark Office will reveal that marketers who were once in love with corporate-sounding names, have since favored naming the companies after the products, not vice versa. A step back to ChiquitaFyffes would be slippery. Retail consumer brands have the emotion, and often fame, and companies have fairly flocked to protecting those proud names above all. Once the corporate name is fixed over time, management will review all of the other products they sell (do not wholly discount the collateral items like candles and fragrance dispensers that Chiquita has filed to register since August 2013, or the lip balm they filed to protect in 2012). Someone may suggest that “ChiquitaFyffes” is a better way to go. But you can be sure that factions from each side of the merger will be fighting to make their mark become top You-Know-What. The Chiquita side may find the situation more-ripe for the taking, owning dozens upon dozens of active U.S. trademark registrations, compared to Fyffes’ three.